Cache Rating

June 23, 2006

I was on the Forums tonight and saw alot of the topics dealing with numbers, and caches and hiding and an idea came to me to start this thread to get it all on to one topic.

What if there was a cache rating system?

After you log a cache there are a few rating questions to answer. Such as :

Quality of container

Quality of location

Quality of hide

maybe one or two more questions that are rated 1 to 5. Nothing dealing with swag inside. that is a WHOLE other issue. After you answer the questions. the cache is given an overall rating based off your answers. The star rating could go right beside the terrain and difficulty rating. This would, I think, get rid of alot of the lame caches, and help the more experienced cachers avoid lower rated caches, yet allow number hounds to continue to hunt all. I think this would also help people place more quality caches, because who wouldn't want a 5 star cache that was given that by your fellow cachers.

what do you think?

6.7k · June 23, 2006

what do you think?

I think it has been talked to death, is a bad idea, and I think I remember TPTB saying it would never happen here.

If that last part is correct, that ought to about wrap this thread up.

June 23, 2006

I was on the Forums tonight and saw alot of the topics dealing with numbers, and caches and hiding and an idea came to me to start this thread to get it all on to one topic.

What if there was a cache rating system?

After you log a cache there are a few rating questions to answer. Such as :

Quality of container

Quality of location

Quality of hide

maybe one or two more questions that are rated 1 to 5. Nothing dealing with swag inside. that is a WHOLE other issue. After you answer the questions. the cache is given an overall rating based off your answers. The star rating could go right beside the terrain and difficulty rating. This would, I think, get rid of alot of the lame caches, and help the more experienced cachers avoid lower rated caches, yet allow number hounds to continue to hunt all. I think this would also help people place more quality caches, because who wouldn't want a 5 star cache that was given that by your fellow cachers.

what do you think?

I think it wouldn't take long for the ratings to get skewed, especially since quality is so subjective to rate and varies from area to area, just as terrain and difficulty do. I thnk one thing would be if hiders were to hold themselves to a higher standard .....in my mind, you should never have to 'apologize' for your cache on your cache page, for example "Quick micro in the park, just wanted to hide one and only had a few minutes at lunch time to toss this out and get some coords. Sorry if the coords are off, please note better ones if you get them."

3.2k · June 23, 2006

what do you think?

People have trouble handling the rating of difficulty and terrain which are much more concrete concepts than location quality, hide quality, or container quality. Possibly the only value of such a system would be to keep the forums interesting as folks flame each other's evaluations.

8.9k · June 23, 2006

what do you think?

I think it has been talked to death, is a bad idea, and I think I remember TPTB saying it would never happen here.

If that last part is correct, that ought to about wrap this thread up.

It is not correct:

Link to Jeremy's statement.

2.2k · June 23, 2006

what do you think?

I think it has been talked to death, is a bad idea, and I think I remember TPTB saying it would never happen here.

If that last part is correct, that ought to about wrap this thread up.

I thought we covered this in another thread. TPTB did not say that it would never happen. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

Here's the thread with Jeremy's perspective

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see your post Markwell

Edited June 23, 2006 by ReadyOrNot

June 23, 2006

I'm glad that we hold such a high opinion of ourselves that we have already decided that we can't be responsible objective people and fairly rate someone else's cache.

2.2k · June 23, 2006

I'm glad that we hold such a high opinion of ourselves that we have already decided that we can't be responsible objective people and fairly rate someone else's cache.

No rating system is going to be perfect. I think TPTB already have a fairly good idea of what they are going to do and I'm sure they are already working on it. And I'm sure they are laughing at us wasting all our time in the forums hashing over this topic OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

It might be a good idea to only allow premium, active members to rate caches. This would minimize certain people from other certain sites trying to sabotage the rating system. Again, let's remember that nothing is going to be perfect.

2.3k · June 23, 2006

I'm glad that we hold such a high opinion of ourselves that we have already decided that we can't be responsible objective people and fairly rate someone else's cache.

Considering that we have one thread talking about a cache that they called in a muggle to dispose of, but others happily hunted and made nice comments in their logs about; the multiple of threads about cache quality and diametrically opposed views of such; and all the other logs about numbers and the vastly differenct opions, then no, I don't think we can be responsible objective people and fairly rate someone else's cache. Not that we aren't great people or that we wouldn't want to do that, it's just that we all see things from our own perspective and this is just too subjective.

Apparently we can't even always agree on diff and terr ratings. What may seem suitable for a small child to hunt may appear to be too tough of a terrain. I know that I may find a 5 mile hike difficult, but a lot of other cachers would consider it easy.

The first hide that I put out in the woods, I rated it a 2/3 because to me it was hard to get to the location that I hid it in. However, after reading a few of the first logs, I lowered the rating because it became obvious to me that it wasn't nearly as hard as I thought it was.

Additionally, I can't see someone really rating their own cache low for quality. If they did, then why would they be hiding it to begin with.

I can imagine a cacher filling out the extra questions:

Quality of container: ($2.50 bison tube) Hmmm, it's brand new. 5

Quality of location: (deep in the woods on a trail) Hmmm, the trail is really nice. 5

Quality of hide: (under the root of a tree) Hmmm, noone can see it. Should take 'em a while to find. 5

Now this cacher probably thinks they just hid a high quality cache. However, I know from another thread that this would be considered a "lame" cache by quite a number of people. I also know from the same thread that several people would be tickled pink to hunt this. What is grease to one is gravy to another.

**Edited to add that I just reread the OP and see that he's not advocating a hider answer these question, but other cachers as they log the cache. I still stand by the post as written.

Edited June 23, 2006 by GeoBain

2k · June 23, 2006

How about a less direct method of rating a cache?

When a finder logs a cache he rates it how hew feels it should be rated, say 1 to five stars.

Then the site tallies the ratings and comes back with something like "Other cachers who rated this cache like you have also liked the following caches" No need to post the star ratings, just point out what like minded cachers would recommend.

June 23, 2006

apparently we ARE going to have this conversation again, so...

Every thread I have read on this over complicates the process. Why have 3, or 5, or 7 ratings - if anything is considered, I think the only consideration should be 1 - it is easy, and all encompassing. Yes we all value differant things, yes there could be controversy and sabatoge, yes a micro in a wally world parking lot is considered lame by many, but top-notch caching to others, yes we all have subjective ratings and prefer differant things (yeah I know I mentioned that one twice, but that is the most common responce.)

BUT

Movies sites can get away with 1 rating system, and lets me honest people prefer differant things - the differance between a forign film lover and an action film junkie is way more polarized then a cacher who likes micros in parking lots and someone who prefers 5/5 extreme caches.

My 2 cents: it could work (although it won't be perfect), and even if flawed, could give us a slightly better idea of what was out there.

Two mods that could make it work better: limit ratings ability to premium members, and require 10+ ratings before the rating will show up. (yes I know about sock puppets, and friend's rating friends caches, but give it a chance)

Edited June 23, 2006 by SG-MIN

2.3k · June 23, 2006

You actually have pointed out exactly why another rating would not work. I hardly ever agree with IMDB, for instance. I never agree with the star rating from the cable listing. The two things that do seem to work most of the time, however, are watching movies made by directors/writers I like and movies that star one of my favorites actors/actresses.

In that case we already have that ability in caching. You learn who your prefered hiders are and which ones you really do not like. Then you rush out to get a FTF on the ones you like and you either ignore or save for a slow day the caches by hiders you don't particularly enjoy.

And for the actors/actresses side, you learn which size and type you enjoy. If you enjoy a good puzzle, you go out and find puzzles. If you like the traditionals, then find those. If you like multis, knock yourself out.

If you don't like micros, avoid then. If you like regular containers, hunt them.

But I just don't see how with all the diversity among cachers that any quality rating would work. Well, the exception would be if you could profile all cachers and then you could see how someone rated a cache and looking at their profile see if it matches your profile. But I am a stickler for privacy so I don't want to be profiled.

2.2k · June 23, 2006

But I just don't see how with all the diversity among cachers that any quality rating would work. Well, the exception would be if you could profile all cachers and then you could see how someone rated a cache and looking at their profile see if it matches your profile. But I am a stickler for privacy so I don't want to be profiled.

Here we go again.....

If I go watch a horror movie and someone asks me, "Rate the movie from 1 to 10".. If I don't like horror movies, I might rate it a 1.. If I like them, I might rate it a 10.. This WILL NOT work, I agree....

BUT...

What if I watched a horror movie and someone asked, "Was the movie a horror movie?" or "Was the movie a romantic comedy?"...

There are ways to do ratings that remove the subjectivity.

18.9k · June 23, 2006

But I just don't see how with all the diversity among cachers that any quality rating would work. Well, the exception would be if you could profile all cachers and then you could see how someone rated a cache and looking at their profile see if it matches your profile. But I am a stickler for privacy so I don't want to be profiled.

Here we go again.....

If I go watch a horror movie and someone asks me, "Rate the movie from 1 to 10".. If I don't like horror movies, I might rate it a 1.. If I like them, I might rate it a 10.. This WILL NOT work, I agree....

BUT...

What if I watched a horror movie and someone asked, "Was the movie a horror movie?" or "Was the movie a romantic comedy?"...

There are ways to do ratings that remove the subjectivity.

Would be a silly question to ask of anybody that went to the movie knowing it was a horror movie. - poor example. Would give a universal response of yes. Only those showing up with no idea of what they are about to watch could offer anything useful. And who does that?? Unless they were mislead by some rating or another.....

Still waiting to see a list of these truely "objective" geocache questions.

8.9k · June 23, 2006

What if I watched a horror movie and someone asked, "Was the movie a horror movie?" or "Was the movie a romantic comedy?"...

There are ways to do ratings that remove the subjectivity.

Yep - and those would be that "this cache is a traditional cache, regular sized with a terrain of 2.5 and a difficulty of 1.5." We have that.

What I proposed many times over and others have said as well, is that knowing if other people LIKED it (not why they liked it) I might give that particular cache a second look.

Again - this is not for the cachers that have been living in the area and caching for a long time. They will probably find the caches anyway. This rating system would be for the people that are either new or just passing through.

Hypothetical: If I'm staying the weekend in the far western suburbs of Chicago, there are so MANY, MANY caches to choose from. How do I know which ones out of the 2000+ caches in the Chicago area are going to give me a stellar experience. I'm only there for the weekend. Sort through terrain and difficulty, type, size? That's not going to tell me which ones are the good ones.

But if someone were able to make it as part of their Top 10% Favorites list, and a certain number of people make it on their Top 10% favorite list, these caches might rise to the top, and be "recommended" caches. So maybe something like GCA15A would get a second look from a cacher staying in Chicago - where they might be filtering out Multi-stage caches.

If you're not sure what I'm proposing for the "Top 10% Favorites List" ...

The current proposal on the table is...
Cachers would be able to use a special bookmark list designated as "favorites" - similar to the ignore list

The maximum number of caches any account would be able to mark as a favorite cache would be a percentage to the number of total finds the account has (current thought is 10%)

Caches that have a minimum number ("X") of cachers listing the cache as a favorite would be designated with some small recognition on the cache page - similar to the attributes - indicating that some people thought that the cache was a worthy one (maybe a Gold Star/Smiley

Caches below the critical mass of X accounts would not be differentiated from any other average or sub-par caches. There would be two categories - the ones one which there's a consensus this cache is "good", and all of the others.

Once the Favorites bookmark (currently proposed by Jeremy) would go into place, eventually cachers would be able to set up a pocket query to only show these caches. This is similar to the idea of only showing caches that match a certain attribute. They would also see "favorite" caches designated on a standard proximity or zip code search.

Jeremy has also proposed that if a cacher DOES list a cache as a favorite in this specialized list, their log would be dynamic in that their found it logs (and notes, DNFs maybe) would also show that same not-over-the-top icon that would mean that this is one of the cachers' logs that thought enough of this cache to list it as a favorite.

Some thought has also been given to making X a variable number in the PQ, thus allowing the potential seeker to choose how many accounts think this cache is a good one.

Things this is NOT:

People will NOT be giving caches a grade, or rating them 1-10.

This will NOT create a system that will say that a cache is "bad." The only time this system "trashes" a cache is if a cache has been found a large number times, and it can't seem to get X number of cachers to say that it's in their top 10%. That silence would be very telling.

This is NOT a proposal to have finders rate terrain and difficulty

2.2k · June 23, 2006

What if I watched a horror movie and someone asked, "Was the movie a horror movie?" or "Was the movie a romantic comedy?"...

There are ways to do ratings that remove the subjectivity.

Yep - and those would be that "this cache is a traditional cache, regular sized with a terrain of 2.5 and a difficulty of 1.5." We have that.

What if we expanded on the current D/T cache ratings to include a little bit more information? I liked what handicaching.com did with the D/T ratings. They basically expanded on them to give people a better idea of what to expect from the cache.

I'm not sure what it would look like, just a thought....

24.7k · June 23, 2006

There are two types of ratings that would work.

The first is "Best of the Best" or "Worst of the Worst". For some reason in spite of all our differing viewpoints some caches do manage to rise above the rest. These are the can't miss even if you normally hate that kind of cache caches.

The other is so complex in execution to make it work and give you useful information that people would not rate caches. What that means is that once you sort out how to rate caches so that hikers can filter out hiking caches and urbanites the urban ones and knowing that hikers hate urbans and rate them bad and vice versa... It's just a mess and as much as it's been discussed it hasn't been solved in a simple and elegant fashion.

2.2k · June 23, 2006

Anyone ever use the TiVO ratings? Big "RED" and "GREEN" buttons? I like Markwell's idea, but it would have to have widespread use to be useful. There would have to be a BIG button on the cache page or when you log the cache "PUT ON TOP 10% LIST". If it's not easy, easy, easy, then people won't use it and if people don't use it, it would be worthless.

Edited June 23, 2006 by ReadyOrNot

2.2k · June 23, 2006

Just had a thought (uh oh!)

How many folks out there look at the number of people watching a cache as a help in determining quality? There is certainly a direct correlation. The really EXCELLENT caches that i've done generally have a higher number of people watching them, whereas the parking lot lamp post micro's tend to not. Would be interesting to allow people to search (or sort) based on the number of people watching a cache. I'd bet my neighbors house that the vast majority would be high quality.

Just a thought :cry:

Edited June 23, 2006 by ReadyOrNot

8.9k · June 23, 2006

How many folks out there look at the number of people watching a cache as a help in determining quality?

I used to.

Then came bookmarks.

I don't have ANY caches on my watchlist anymore. Many are the same like me.

1.4k · June 23, 2006

I'm glad that we hold such a high opinion of ourselves that we have already decided that we can't be responsible objective people and fairly rate someone else's cache.

Even with a majority of participants exercising "objectivity", a very small minority of abusers can ruin the credibility of a good rating system with lots of needless angst later on. If there's a way to control the participants (which is kind of oppressive), then I agree very much with your sentiments.

I won't object to a rating system, but I'll likely not use it, since I've enjoyed Geocaching without it for quite a while now. I try to carry as little expectation as possible when visiting a cache, and that pays off dividends when it's a great location and/or a hide. :cry: Lame hides can be mocked on the spot and quickly forgotten. :cry:

2.2k · June 23, 2006

How many folks out there look at the number of people watching a cache as a help in determining quality?

I used to.

Then came bookmarks.

I don't have ANY caches on my watchlist anymore. Many are the same like me.

I like the bookmarks, but at this point they aren't very useful for what we are talking about in this thread. At this point, how would I go about using bookmarks for what we are discussing? Until then, what I was saying is that at least the # of watchers gives us an indication. In my area, very rarely do you see a public bookmark list of top 10%. And even if there were, there is no method for searching them at this point.

9.2k · June 23, 2006

How many folks out there look at the number of people watching a cache as a help in determining quality?

High watchlist totals often just indicate that 1.) a cache has simply been around a good while; 2.) It's an especially difficult cache, or has an especially difficult puzzle; 3.) or it's controversial in some way, such as the infamous "Integrity" cache. I would doubt there's any direct correlation between watchlist numbers and "quality" (which is pretty much in the eye of the beholder).

And, and Markwell mentioned, watchlists are a bit passé. Their only advantage is their unlimited size, if you're a PM.

11.3k · June 23, 2006

I'm glad that we hold such a high opinion of ourselves that we have already decided that we can't be responsible objective people and fairly rate someone else's cache.

Even with a majority of participants exercising "objectivity", a very small minority of abusers can ruin the credibility of a good rating system with lots of needless angst later on. If there's a way to control the participants (which is kind of oppressive), then I agree very much with your sentiments.

<snip>

I agree. I have four public bookmarks and some jerk came along and put negative comments on a couple of them. The person has since removed their comments, but it was upsetting to see disparaging remarks on a helpful bookmark I worked hard to create in an effort to help other cachers . . . :cry:

June 23, 2006

Good thoughts everyone. I think this is finally helping to forward the discussion. To many times people step up and say It won't work or the numbers would be skewed, but I think as a community, we can do something about this. I think a reccomend question would be fantastic. Here are some of my edited thoughts since this thread started. I have changed thequestions as follows:

Does the terrain match the rating? Higher/Lower/exact

Does the difficulty match the rating? Higher/Lower/exact

Was the container in good condition?Excellent/Good/fair/poor/needs replacing

Would you reccomend this cache? Yes/No/ Maybe

Now what do these questions have to do with rating the cache? As with any survey you ask filler questions. The only questions that count are the last two. The first two can be used as litmus tests to see if some one is being honest or flaming someones cache. The third(cache condition) can be used by GC to notify owners if alot of people say the cache is in poor condition and maybe archive ones that are not replaced or maintained.

The last question(reccomend) can be used in a case of if it gets 50-70% reccomend and alot of maybe answers then the cache can be a recommended cache.

2.2k · June 23, 2006

How many folks out there look at the number of people watching a cache as a help in determining quality?

High watchlist totals often just indicate that 1.) a cache has simply been around a good while; 2.) It's an especially difficult cache, or has an especially difficult puzzle; 3.) or it's controversial in some way, such as the infamous "Integrity" cache. I would doubt there's any direct correlation between watchlist numbers and "quality" (which is pretty much in the eye of the beholder).

And, and Markwell mentioned, watchlists are a bit passé. Their only advantage is their unlimited size, if you're a PM.

You would doubt there's any direct correlation between watchlist numbers and "quality"? Go find a cache with high watchlist numbers that's a garbage lamp post cache (unless there's something really unique about it)... Seriously, you seem to know everything, so share with us all a garbage cache that has high watchlist numbers... Put your money where your mouth is... Let's move this from argument to fact.

EDIT: The rudeness in my post is in direct correlation to previous conflicts/discussions with Prime Suspect and in no way is intended to disrespect or cause anyone else harm or discomfort.

Edited June 24, 2006 by ReadyOrNot

9.2k · June 24, 2006

EDIT: The rudeness in my post is in direct correlation to previous conflicts/discussions with Prime Suspect and in no way is intended to disrespect or cause anyone else harm or discomfort.

There has been no conflict. A conflict takes at least two people. You're the only one making abusive posts. You seem to be having this fight all by yourself.

2.2k · June 24, 2006

EDIT: The rudeness in my post is in direct correlation to previous conflicts/discussions with Prime Suspect and in no way is intended to disrespect or cause anyone else harm or discomfort.

There has been no conflict. A conflict takes at least two people. You're the only one making abusive posts. You seem to be having this fight all by yourself.

You've tried to derail a few threads. You've purposely made nasty, drive-by comments (not that I haven't done it), but at least I'm man enough to be up-front about it. Where's the list of all those parking lot micros with huge watchlists?

Edited June 24, 2006 by ReadyOrNot

9.2k · June 24, 2006

EDIT: The rudeness in my post is in direct correlation to previous conflicts/discussions with Prime Suspect and in no way is intended to disrespect or cause anyone else harm or discomfort.

There has been no conflict. A conflict takes at least two people. You're the only one making abusive posts. You seem to be having this fight all by yourself.

You've tried to derail a few threads. You've purposely made nasty, drive-by comments (not that I haven't done it), but at least I'm man enough to be up-front about it. Where's the list of all those parking lot micros with huge watchlists?

Again, you're fighting with yourself.

As for the list of parking lot micros, I didn't reply because your request doesn't make sense. In my post, I was remarking on the usual reasons why certain caches may have high watchlist numbers. I said:

High watchlist totals often just indicate that 1.) a cache has simply been around a good while; 2.) It's an especially difficult cache, or has an especially difficult puzzle; 3.) or it's controversial in some way, such as the infamous "Integrity" cache. I would doubt there's any direct correlation between watchlist numbers and "quality" (which is pretty much in the eye of the beholder).

I said these are often the reasons for the high numbers. So if you find a cache that has double-digit watchlist numbers, it probably falls under one or more of those 3 categories. Since few lightpole park & grab caches fall under those categories, I wouldn't expect to see high watchlist numbers for them.

A "list of all those parking lot micros with huge watchlists" wouldn't validate what I said. It would do the exact opposite.

2.2k · June 24, 2006

Your so interested in denying that you're antagonizing me.. Here's the proof:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

I don't care if you want to antagonize me (I am known to do it on occasion), but at least be a man about it instead of acting like I'm making it all up.

9.2k · June 24, 2006

Heh. I'll let people decide for themselves if your reaction is wildly out of proportion.

June 24, 2006

Guys take your argument to another thread. If you want to bicker like a married couple start a new thread and do it there. This is so we can try and come up with ideas so that if you are visiting a new area you can go for the best caches in the area.

June 24, 2006

I think we all try to make it too difficult (even me). I like the two big buttons idea, but I would tweak it a bit:

When you log a cache you have the option of answering 1 question: would you recomment this cache?

This one, one person's angst could not pull down the total too far, nor could a person's friends boost the rating.

To answer the "what about people liking differant things" well I think this solves it. If you like micros, you can still get the most recommended micros, if you like walks in the woods, you can do teh highest rated walks in the woods. Even though I am not a big fan of micros, I know of serveral I would deffinetly recommend. I also think there are some caches in my area that noone would recommend.

My main reason for advocating this system is for those of us that travel, and want to have at least a general idea of which caches are worth my time.

9.1k · June 24, 2006

How many folks out there look at the number of people watching a cache as a help in determining quality?

I used to.

Then came bookmarks.

I don't have ANY caches on my watchlist anymore. Many are the same like me.

I like the bookmarks, but at this point they aren't very useful for what we are talking about in this thread. At this point, how would I go about using bookmarks for what we are discussing? Until then, what I was saying is that at least the # of watchers gives us an indication. In my area, very rarely do you see a public bookmark list of top 10%. And even if there were, there is no method for searching them at this point.

Like Markwell, my watchlist has cobwebs, and I'm a power user of bookmarks. Anyone can see my favorite caches by clicking on the link in my forum signature, or by following the link on the bookmarks tab of my profile page. And when you look at the caches on that list, you'd see that others have also included them on their "favorites" list. There are seven caches at the top of my favorites list, which are the "best of the best." *Each* of them is listed on multiple bookmark lists from recognized geocachers like Moun10Bike, Lil Devil, Quest Master, etc. Seeing multiple "favorites" links is a reliable indicator of cache quality. It has convinced me of the merits of the plan outlined by Markwell above.

All we need now is a bit of coding and then some publicity to encourage people to designate their favorite caches. A simple yes/no button is all I'm looking for -- not a survey. And yes, a better way to search for favorites is needed. But even right now, there are tools available:

Look at the bookmarks tab on the profiles of prominent geocachers in the area you're visiting.
Search for a "geocaching tour guide" at Waymarking.com for the area you're visiting.
Once you discover one cool cache, follow the bookmark links and it takes you to dozens of other cool caches, as rated by someone who enjoyed the same cache you thought was cool.
Local geocaching organizations often maintain collective favorites lists, or a section in their forums to discuss favorite caches.

38.2k · June 24, 2006

There are several ways to judge a cache. First look at the logs. See log after log of "Found it! TFTC", you can be pretty sure its a stinker. If you see numerous, lengthy logs its likely that its a good one.

Bookmark lists are another measure. Geobain mentioned that he doesn't like ratings for movies because he often doesn't agree with them. I have a few film critics whose opinions I respect as we seem to have similar taste, so I go with their recommendations and I'm rarely disappointed. Bookmark lists can be used in a similar manner. If you like the kinds of caches that CacherX likes, check out his bookmark list. Also check out the cache page to see how many bookmark lists its on. That is a great indicator (depending on what the list is for).

Look at the BM lists for thjis cache and this cache. You can tell a lot from the BMs.

2.3k · June 24, 2006

Look at the BM lists for thjis cache and this cache. You can tell a lot from the BMs.

We can tell you like both of those caches. Each made it to 2 of your bookmark lists.

I agree with the film critics angle. This is sort of what I was thinking about when I mentioned seeing how someone rated a cache and also seeing if their profile matched yours. I too generally trust the opinions of a couple of critics for which my opinions are generally in line with theirs.

The bookmarking seems like yet another tool that is already in our arsenal which closely matches a "critics view".

I know that locally, I have just learned which hiders do good hides. Actually, I tend to grab whichever ones are handy when I am in the mood. But I will attempt more difficult caches placed by "trusted" cachers.

Now when I go on a trip and know I have time to cache, I actually plan for the trip. I will download the pq's, filter in GSAK, then go and read the actual cache listings. Then I pick out the caches I think I will like and build a route from the hotel.

I can understand why folks would want an easy one-click solution to find quality caches when out of town. However, your best bet is to plan and research the trip utilizing the tools already at your disposal.

9.2k · June 25, 2006

I had suggested (and wasn't the first) an Amazon.com style recommendation system a while back, which would essentially network and tabulate caches based on the suggestions of people who also recommended the same caches that you did. I think it would help the cacher find more local caches that he or she would find interesting. But unfortunately, since it's essentially a network that spreads out from your suggested caches, it won't help much when you're traveling to areas where you've never cached before.

June 25, 2006

I think a big one question" would you reccomend this cache?" would be perfect. If a cache is reccomended over 50% of the time then it becomes a reccomended cache and gets an Icon beside the listing. Then it could be searched for in an area just like traditional/Multi/ Puzzle caches.

So when you travel and don't have time to hit all 200 caches in the area, you could use the recomend list for the area and go after the ones recommended by your fellow cachers.

38.2k · June 25, 2006

I think a big one question" would you reccomend this cache?" would be perfect. If a cache is reccomended over 50% of the time then it becomes a reccomended cache and gets an Icon beside the listing. Then it could be searched for in an area just like traditional/Multi/ Puzzle caches.

So when you travel and don't have time to hit all 200 caches in the area, you could use the recomend list for the area and go after the ones recommended by your fellow cachers.

I always liked this. After say 5 finds the page could say something like "3 of 5 finders recommend this cache"

9.2k · June 25, 2006

I think a big one question" would you reccomend this cache?" would be perfect. If a cache is reccomended over 50% of the time then it becomes a reccomended cache and gets an Icon beside the listing. Then it could be searched for in an area just like traditional/Multi/ Puzzle caches.

So when you travel and don't have time to hit all 200 caches in the area, you could use the recomend list for the area and go after the ones recommended by your fellow cachers.

I always liked this. After say 5 finds the page could say something like "3 of 5 finders recommend this cache"

Of course, your anonymity is gone if you're one of the 5 who's posted a find, and it says "0 of 5 finders recommend this cache".

Edited June 25, 2006 by Prime Suspect

7.2k · June 26, 2006

I think a big one question" would you reccomend this cache?" would be perfect. If a cache is reccomended over 50% of the time then it becomes a reccomended cache and gets an Icon beside the listing. Then it could be searched for in an area just like traditional/Multi/ Puzzle caches.

So when you travel and don't have time to hit all 200 caches in the area, you could use the recomend list for the area and go after the ones recommended by your fellow cachers.

I always liked this. After say 5 finds the page could say something like "3 of 5 finders recommend this cache"

Of course, your anonymity is gone if you're one of the 5 who's posted a find, and it says "0 of 5 finders recommend this cache".

...and the extension of that is "Post a recommendation or I'm going to delete your log." One thing I worry about if non-verification additional logging requirements get the nod.

June 26, 2006

I don't think it would need to even say 3 out of 5 or anything like that. After 10 finds if half the finders mark it reccomend it gets a nice little thumbs up icon on the list page saying hey check this one out. If someone wants to be a jerk then they are a jerk all the time and trying to please them is like trying to get a politician to tell you what he really thinks.

June 26, 2006

I think a big one question" would you reccomend this cache?" would be perfect. If a cache is reccomended over 50% of the time then it becomes a reccomended cache and gets an Icon beside the listing. Then it could be searched for in an area just like traditional/Multi/ Puzzle caches.

So when you travel and don't have time to hit all 200 caches in the area, you could use the recomend list for the area and go after the ones recommended by your fellow cachers.

I always liked this. After say 5 finds the page could say something like "3 of 5 finders recommend this cache"

I think this is the simplest, and by far most helpful rating system I have seen yet. To answer the question: "what if 0 out 5 reccommend?" Well I would hope the cache placer get the message. I do think it makes sence to not publish the rating until you get at least 5 votes to keep some aninimoty. I would like to see how many ratings, and what the ratings were (i.e. "3 out of 5 recommend" or "60% recommend" rather then just a thumbs up or thumbs down)

Bravo Davispak... of course the chance of seeing this is slim to none, but it gets my blessing.

2.2k · June 26, 2006

There was a discussion on cache ratings in a non English speaking european subforum.

The question was: I there a criteria for cache quality that will be accepted by every cacher?

No such criteria was found.

7.2k · June 26, 2006

There was a discussion on cache ratings in a non English speaking european subforum.

The question was: I there a criteria for cache quality that will be accepted by every cacher?

No such criteria was found.

Not even "I enjoyed it?"

11.3k · June 26, 2006

I have a lamp post hide. I placed it after I hurt myself and had an appreciation for a cache that was easy to get to.

It is just like all the other lamp post hides, but the logs for that one are really interesting. Some people have "enjoyed it" because of what has been going on in the parking lot when they were there.

Other people probably think it is just another boring LPH.

How would a rating system work when the "drama" that is going on when one cacher visits the location, which makes it a fun, memorable cache, is not going on when the next cacher is there?

June 27, 2006

Well Miragee, I think we would like for all of our caches to be interesting, and I believe we all think that our caches are all good and would all be reccomended, but we also know better than that. I would like to think that at least one of mine would make the list. And that's what I'm talking about. There are 1700 caches within 100 miles of my home co-ords. If you come to my town, there are hundreds to chose from. I as a fellow cacher would like you to have the best caching experience you could while visiting. Now, you could spend hours checking and reading logs, and looking at bookmark lists, and downloading lists, and throwing chicken bones , and consulting a soothsayer to find a few good caches to go to, or your fellow cachers who have been here before you can have reccommended th ecache and now it is narrowed down to a few dozen or maybe a 100 to choose from instead of 500. That is all im shooting for. And from reading the logs I would hope that GC does look and listen to these logs.

22k · June 27, 2006

Unfortunately what makes a good cache is somewhat subjective. Set aside beautiful locations and interesting cache hides for a moment.

If I am traveling I have to consider several things: How much time do I have to cache, will I have kids with me, will I have a stroller, what's the weather predicted to be, are there caches near the places I will be visiting, do I have or need transportation. Will I be able to take any special equipment with me on the trip. Etc, etc.

I find it far easier to look for a local active cacher in that area, send them an email explaining my situation and the kind of caches I would like to find. I have always received a positive reply recommending caches to look for.

I vacationed in San Francisco. I found a cacher with several hides, explained that I had the kids with me, we did have a car and would like caches that would take us to nearby tourist attractions. They sent me a list of about 15 caches I could do!

We are a community, enjoy the benefits.

June 27, 2006

Well Miragee, I think we would like for all of our caches to be interesting, and I believe we all think that our caches are all good and would all be reccomended, but we also know better than that. I would like to think that at least one of mine would make the list. And that's what I'm talking about. There are 1700 caches within 100 miles of my home co-ords. If you come to my town, there are hundreds to chose from. I as a fellow cacher would like you to have the best caching experience you could while visiting. Now, you could spend hours checking and reading logs, and looking at bookmark lists, and downloading lists, and throwing chicken bones , and consulting a soothsayer to find a few good caches to go to, or your fellow cachers who have been here before you can have reccommended th ecache and now it is narrowed down to a few dozen or maybe a 100 to choose from instead of 500. That is all im shooting for. And from reading the logs I would hope that GC does look and listen to these logs.

The whole "subjectivity" piece has to be forgotten. If you don't like the movie reviewer, what about the amazon model (I would think books would be even more subjective.) Let's face, we as a society generally like to know what we are getting into.

Just because some are more recommended, does not mean that others would not be retreived - I have almost found every cache in my county - boring and otherwise. If I travel, can only grab one, I want to know what people recommend.

2.2k · June 27, 2006

Not even "I enjoyed it?"

One cacher likes drive in caches, the other likes multi stage caches with 50 stages and more than 20 km of walk. If the multi stage cache lover rates a multi stage cache as "very good" this won't mean that the drive in cacher will like this cache.

Cache Rating

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment